Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral boundaries beyond that: pagination behavior and the explicit negative scope ("Does not read Context session history"), which the annotations and schema do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the entry rule and the exclusion. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with a 100% documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on what "scope and relationships" actually returns, but with no output schema and a clear sibling pointer, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (cursor, pageSize, nodeId, projectId, etc.). The description only repeats "Supply nodeId" and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a selected published graph node's scope and relationships") plus a scoping detail (pagination). It also carves out a boundary against context/session tools with "Does not read Context session history." It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like graph_read or scope_read, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit entry guidance ("Supply nodeId; use get_roots first when you do not know a starting node") and one exclusion ("Does not read Context session history"). This is clear context plus a named alternative, but it lacks a full when-to-use-vs-when-not decision against other graph readers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.